Posted on 11/02/2005 3:35:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A school board member who was questioned by a federal judge about discrepancies in his testimony on the purchase of "intelligent design" textbooks was expected to return to the witness stand Wednesday.
Dover Area School Board member Alan Bonsell was to undergo redirect questioning by an attorney representing the board in a landmark trial over whether intelligent design can be introduced in high school science classes.
Bonsell testified Monday that he had received an $850 check from fellow board member William Buckingham. The check was made out to Bonsell's father, who volunteered to donate copies of "Of Pandas and People" to the district.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III asked Bonsell why he never shared that information in a January deposition when he was repeatedly asked under oath about who was involved in making the donation. Bonsell, who served as the board's president in 2004, said he misspoke. [Note to school board lawyers: When the judge asks your client why he's lying, it's usually not a good sign.]
Buckingham testified Thursday he collected $850 in donations to help purchase the books during a Sunday service at his church.
The board is defending its October 2004 decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to the textbook for more information.
Eight families are suing to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum because they believe the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation, and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Intelligent design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.
The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to conclude on Friday.
Ho(a)x Genetics! see! they ADMIT IT!
>/JackChick<
monkey worshippers place marker...
This would make an interesting case study for ninth graders.
PlaceMarker
Hooray for HoxA-13! It has just become my favorite Hox gene.
Well you better start cracking as you've got almost 8 years and thousands of posts to go through. I've been warned to steer clear of Freeper pagan religion threads before. No big deal.
I had one post pulled, #64. And you can read everything I wrote in #64 as quoted by another poster in #117. I didn't write post #57, I just responded to it. That the mods didn't pull #117 as well should be your first clue.
I'm just going by your behavior -- adding no information to the thread, just complaining that not everyone agrees with you.
If you want to overturn 150 years of biology, hit the books and learn what biology teaches.
Which could happen rapidly (by erosion); just look at Mount St. Helens; Grand Canyon Explanans.
"They Light Up My Life"?
um...
thanks for putting that damnable whining ballad in my head.
Trial transcript: plaintiffs' opening statement. Excerpt:
Eighteen years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in Edwards versus Aguillard, held that public schools could not teach students creation science because that proposition's core concept of a supernatural creator is religious, not scientific, and therefore violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court recognized that the teaching of creation science was motivated by a religious and cultural agenda, not the improvement of scientific education.What we will prove at this trial is that the Dover board policy has the same characteristics and the same constitutional defects as the creation science policy struck down in Edwards. You will hear testimony from members of the Dover community, these parents, teachers, administrators, and board members, about how this change to the curriculum came to be.
Board members announced their interest in the topic of evolution in starkly religious terms. They looked for a book that could provide a religious alternative to evolution, and they found one in Of Pandas and People.
They changed the science curriculum to advance a specific religious viewpoint, and in doing so, they ignored accepted scientific knowledge, failed to avail themselves of the advice of established scientific organizations, and ignored their own science teachers who opposed the change to the science curriculum.
They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious topic in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity. And we will show that the members of the school board that passed this policy expressed their desire to teach creationism over and over and over again. That's their word, "creationism."
Transcript: Defendants' opening statement. Excerpt:
Now, there's no question, Your Honor, that this final result was worked out through a contentious policy-making process that has led some to liken making legislation to making sausage, a process that involved, at times, heated argument by members of the public, members of the board, false charges and intemperate remarks. But the evidence will show that the consistent goal of the board, as a whole, was to pursue what they believed to be a legitimate educational purpose and to comply with the law.Alan Bonsell is a perfect example. He came to the board without any background in education of the law, just a sincere desire to serve his fellow citizens. By virtue of his personal reading, he was aware of intelligent design theory and that 300 or so scientists had signed a statement indicating that biologists were exaggerating claims for the theory.
He had read about the famous Piltdown man hoax. He had an interest in creationism. He wondered whether it could be discussed in the classroom. Those questions are not evidence of unconstitutional conduct, Your Honor. They were quite legitimate.
We can put a stop to that with some sensible immigration reform.
A lot of people treat current demographic trends as if they are facts of nature, when in reality they are a result of conscious social policy. In this case, really bad immigration policy.
He probably posts here as one of the trolls.
Sounds suspiciously like the "philosopher's defense" against a charge of soliciting:
"But Your Honor, I had no actual interest in a bl@w job; I had read about fellatio, I was curious about it. So I approach the young woman, who, ahhh, turned out to be an undercover agent for the police, and I attempted to engage her in a conversation, .... I mean, a discussion (yeah, that's the ticket!) on the subject. My inquires regarding price were completely of an intellectual nature; they were a philosophical inquiry, with absolutely no sexual content whatsoever. Those questions are not evidence ofunconstitutionalillegal conduct, Your Honor. They were quite legitimate."[Judge, to defendant]: "Then why did you have your pants around your ankles while you were having this alleged "philosophical inquiry"?"
[Defendant]: "Ahhhhh, er....., ah ah giant wasp had just flown up my pant leg at that very moment, and I was afraid it might sting me..... and besides, I was taking Oxycontin at the time......"
How gullible does the defense team think this judge is?
Whether or not Jefferson's view on the 1st Amendment is correct is simply not relevant to this discussion. Regardless of whether the Founders really did intend to build a "wall of separation" (a view which I reject), they clearly did intend to prevent the government from being more partial toward some Christian sect than others.
By teaching ID, the government is bestowing favor upon those Christian sects the teach that the evolution of man required the miraculous intervention of God.
There are plenty of devout Christians ,including me, who believe that divine providence was enough to effect man's evolution. If a government school teaches its students the false claim that there is scientific evidence for miraculous intervention (which is, in effect, what ID claims), then the government school is showing partiality to the sects that hold to this religious doctrine over those, like mine, that reject it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.